Carol Queen: Real Live Nude Girl? (2) a Feature by alice (alice ) back to the first part of this interview: JB What difference do you think it would make to young people's (to everybody's really but especially young people) lives to have access to information, safe sex goodies and comfortable, comforting spaces to talk out (and play with) what was happening to them as their sexual experience unfolds? CQ I think it would allow people to grow into themselves at an easier pace (for some that's be sooner, for others slower); it would help people take better care of themselves emotionally as well as health-wise; it would take sex out of the special ghetto in which most people put it and let it be normalized, a more natural part of life. More than anything, it would alleviate peoples' fears that they are not normal. It's amazing how many people think there's something wrong with them sexually or physically, that information about the great range of experience is hard for so many to come by. JB Embarrassment seems to be such an enormous (yet vital) hurdle to overcome. It seems to me that half the embarrassment around talking about sex is caused by fear of the other person being embarrassed, shocked, or reacting in some other negative way. Perhaps this is why people turn to their doctors for information about sex? But as you pointed out a couple of times in Real Live Nude Girl, doctors don't automatically have that much great information, and maybe are scared to talk to young people (especially girls) about sex at all. This being the case, what sorts of people would you encourage young people to go to for information about sexuality, or even just someone to talk to? What are the sorts of qualities to look for in order to choose a good person to approach? CQ It's not only embarrassment, it's also judgement - and being judged by another person is a pretty uncomfortable experience. Doctors have the reputation of neutrality, I think, as well as of being informed. In fact, most doctors don't get a lot of specialized information about sexuality, so that doctors can be just as uninformed and judgmental as anyone else. I would recommend going to actual sex professionals - sexologists, sex ed teachers, sex therapists - for information, when possible. When that's not possible, I'd suggest talking to the person in your life who seems most open about sexual matters - looking for a lack of embarrassment is definitely a good sign. In some cases - as with a young person who wants to know if s/he might be gay, for instance - there may be helplines available where a person can make a private phone call and talk to a peer or someone with specialized training. In San Francisco we have a hotline like this for all sorts of sexual questions - San Francisco Sex Information. And no matter whom you choose to speak to, I'd say, do your own research. Get on the web, go to the library or the bookshop. If a writer states something that contradicts your own feelings or experience, trust your own feelings first. Sometimes it can be invaluable just to have a friend with whom you can talk out your feelings without pressure; if you feel pressured by anyone (either to have sex with them, to change your feelings, or whatever), that's a warning sign. JB A friend of mine told me about her experience of being anorexic (quite a masochistic thing to do to yourself); her psychiatrist's main response appears to have been that her perverted sexuality (which includes masochistic desires) was at fault and all she needed was to be cured of her bad desires. CQ Grrrrr. Isn't that a bit simplistic? Mightn't it be just as logical to encourage her to go have some of the sex she craved, to see if that took care of her desires for masochism? The fact is, plenty of people live perfectly fine lives that incorporate all kinds of different sexual desires, "perverted" and otherwise; those desires need not cause problems. But if they're thwarted, made to seem wrong or dangerous, implicated in low self-esteem, the results can be pretty negative. My advice to her would be, find out how you can get comfortable with your sexual desires - then see what other issues are left over that might be playing into the anorexia. Naturally that's easy to say. But any professional who wants to problematize a person's sexuality instead of the problem is operating on old, erotophobic assumptions. The sexology community I affiliate with would not use that strategy, although they might ask whether her own negative feelings about her sexuality have some relation to her anorexia. JB A number of times in Real Live Nude Girl you mention reading and other media sources as how you learnt about sexuality as a kid (or at least got hold of specific information that you hadn't previously had access to). What role do you think the media has in the way we learn about sex? CQ It plays an enormous role, though not always a clearly positive or informative one. Access to information (especially forbidden information) is tremendously important. But we are bombarded by "facts" that are no such thing (or that are not true for everyone), images about what's sexually attractive, acceptable, etc., and judgmental portrayals about people who are different from the mainstream. Women, young people, sexual minorities all have to learn to translate media "language" about sex - because sex is used to sell things and get attention, and people using these strategies don't care what sort of information they convey or what kind of impression they leave. JB I don't know what it is like in the US but there is a really clear consumption of queer culture and/or fashion here in Australia. Whether it is "deviant" sexuality appearing in books or film/television, or what was previously a gay fashion appearing on streets everywhere. Images and icons of queerness are being used to sell cars clothes and tv programs. Do you think this appearance of "queer" in the media is going to effect the next generation of budding sesaul people? CQ I think it makes more possibilities available to people (and certainly affects the general level of stylishness!). Yes, this is going on in the US too. On one level I think it's quite positive. No one likes to feel invisible, and I remember as a lesbian in the 70s how excited we were to see a beer ad with two women in it. I think when the mainstream adopts something, though, that it runs the risk of being codified, sort of petrified into a less fluid cultural force. Only a limited range of queerness will be shown, for instance. Or major media representations may take the place of the queer communities' own representations. When big media adopts something, it's rarely for the altruistic reason of letting a community speak for itself. JB Is it going to change what young people believe is possible for themselves to be watching tele and see a spunky girl in leather and a spiky collar who is kicking her way through to the car she really wants? CQ It is a bit, I think, but big issues won't be addressed in this venue (like whether we ought to be driving at all!) - besides, I think once a fashion has been coopted by the mainstream media, people will start creating something different, to differentiate themselves from the mainstream. JB Or is it perhaps going to make it harder for "queers" to make themselves visible in a "straight" world that is consuming and owning queer symbols? CQ Well, the easiest way to make oneself visible as a queer is to say "I'm queer" - to appear with a same-sex partner at the office party, to come out, not to adopt visual signifiers and leave it at that. It's truethat it can make it harder to pick each other out when straight people begin going for our styles. But one underlying possibility is that people attracted to those styles are also more attracted to the ways we live our lives. JB You refer often to your long history as a lesbian, and also to what seems to have been a long standing relationship with your partner, who is a man. Whilst you regularly make references to how you used to be a particular sort of lesbian (or feminist) you never seem to say what you "are" now, subsequently somehow maintaining the idea of lesbianism and yet fucking with it through your references to your male partner. Is this a deliberate attempt to mess with gender and sexuality labels? CQ A bit, I think, but more than that, it's a continuous acknowledgement of how important - really central - lesbian identity hasbeen to me over time, both in helping me shape my sexual politics and worldview, then in giving me a set of "rules" that fenced me in a bit too much and impelled me to explore who else I could be. I do identify as bisexual, or pansexual for that matter (bisexual still implies only two genders), and definitely as queer. I am quite sensitive about being called "straight." I would not feel it appropriate to identify myself as primarily lesbian now, but I want to make it clear that I haven't "gone back to men," moved "past" lesbianism, or anything that sounds like that part of my life was a stage or phase, or less than who I am now. Who I am as a woman today, I learned as a dyke. JB Do you have a label for yourself? CQ "Queer" is comfortable. In my new book _PoMoSexuals_ we explore places that don't fit easily on the binary gay/straight/male/female maps; I suppose "pomo" fits, although that's a bit joky. I do want to challenge those binaries. They have not served me well, and if everyone would take the challenge of doing away with binary thinking, the world would change a lot. JB What does it mean to you to have that label? Is it more of a thing you conform to or something more like a toy to be played with? CQ I'm not very comfortable with the notion of conformity, period! That's the essence of my issues with lesbianism - where I came out, alesbian identity involved a rather substantial amount of conformity to group norms and politics. I think it's a bit different now, but I found I had to be a nonconformist once to escape heterosexuality and sex role stereotypes, and then again to defy a new set of mores and become myself. Identities are full of insight when you toy with them, tweak stereotypes, mix and match. But they're also often very necessary. I don't think we've reached a "post-identity" state. Mostly I use identity terms to affiliate myself with ideas, politics, and communities that I embrace. It's a way of locating myself and my people. JB Do you think that the term "lesbian" has any usefulness or value today outside of a radical feminist (anti-sex) argument? CQ Absolutely! The primary definition of "lesbian" is a woman who loves and desires women. The radical feminist definition departs greatly from the experiences and ideals of lots of lesbians. It's a radical redefinition to suit rad/fem purposes, but that doesn't mean it's universally true. One problem with radical feminist thought is its reliance on essentialism - "women are this," "men are that." These generalizations aren't very useful. JB What about the term "queer"? What do you think "queer" encompasses? CQ I think "queer" encompasses sexual possibility beyond rigid, sex-role-based heterosexuality. I'm aware that some gay/lesbian-identified queers would not like it to encompass (and thus engage them in community with) bisexuals, transgender folk, and "bent" heterosexuals. JB Do you feel that "queer" is still able to be a freer, more fluid term, or has it been pinned down too? CQ I do feel it's a more fluid term, and that's why I think it's come back into vogue - I think many in the queer community are attracted, at least to some degree, to that level of fluidity. JB If it ("queer") is become rigidly defined, then do you think that this may be defeating its purpose (for many of those who use it to describe themselves) by enforcing a meaning/definition upon "queers" where they may have been attempting to escape one? CQ I think the impulse to rigidly define identities is doomed to fail - or at least to result in the development of new identities by those who feel ill-served by older and more rigid definitions. JB I often wonder how much a need for labels for people of particular genders and sexual behaviours is related to a certain level of discomfort with sexuality, and a subsequent need for rigid rules and codes to make it safe and manageable. (Part of what labels do is create/allow binary systems where - for example - good sex is "the nice, wholesome things I do" and bad sex is "the nasty, dirty, deviant things you do" [of course wholesome and deviant depend entirely on who's talking]). What impact do you think the removal of labels for sexual behaviours might have on an anti-sex argument? CQ All though the modern gay/queer movement people who might have identified as gay have protested "I'm just sexual!" when you tried to pin them down. To some degree this can be based in homophobia. But often, I think, it's a "don't fence me in!" response. It's tempting to think that removing these labels would let people engage in behaviors untainted by various phobias. But a lot would have to change to remove the stigma some sex acts carry among a lot of the populace. Most people really rely on those binaries - their erasure would change things enormously. CQ Created on Fri, 23 Jan 1998 and last modified on Mon, 26 Jan 1998.

LOUDonline - http://www.loud.net.au - Fri, 10 Apr 1998